Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Renzo wrote: Paying them less AND working them more is double win for partners.

Paying them less and working them more, in aggregate, is exactly what I am proposing.

Listen, if the structural costs associated with having 50 associates per class rather than 35 is so high that the increased billable hours (and higher quality per hour) that you would get ends up being a money loser, then I'm wrong.

But I appeal to math:35 associates billing 2100 hours a year, making $160k a year gets you 73,500 billed hours for $5.60 million.

49 associates billing 1500 hours a year, making $90k a year gets you the same number of billed hours for $4.41 million

So with plan #2 the firm gets:$1.19 million dollars.A higher per-hour level of productivity (I'm surprised no one has tried to argue this point yet)14 more lottery tickets on a potential rainmaking, multi-millions per year partner.

I refuse to believe that the cost of training and staffing 14 more people outweighs that.

Again, You're missing my point. If you hire 49 associates at $90k, why not make them work 2100 hrs? What possible incentive is there for firms to allow associates to work less, no matter what they pay them?

Renzo wrote: Paying them less AND working them more is double win for partners.

Paying them less and working them more, in aggregate, is exactly what I am proposing.

Listen, if the structural costs associated with having 50 associates per class rather than 35 is so high that the increased billable hours (and higher quality per hour) that you would get ends up being a money loser, then I'm wrong.

But I appeal to math:35 associates billing 2100 hours a year, making $160k a year gets you 73,500 billed hours for $5.60 million.

49 associates billing 1500 hours a year, making $90k a year gets you the same number of billed hours for $4.41 million

So with plan #2 the firm gets:$1.19 million dollars.A higher per-hour level of productivity (I'm surprised no one has tried to argue this point yet)14 more lottery tickets on a potential rainmaking, multi-millions per year partner.

I refuse to believe that the cost of training and staffing 14 more people outweighs that.

I obviously don't know how the numbers work in law firms, but in most businesses firms are going to prefer hiring fewer workers at a higher salary. Salary is only a small part of how much a worker costs. Some overhead to consider: bonuses, health insurance, the way payroll taxes are structured, training, physical space for workers, resources allocated to each workers, and a hundred other things might very well make the "35 associates at 2100 hours" better for firms.

Hey, if you're right, then I'm wrong.

But what I am not wrong about is the fact that these firms can't afford to keep raising salaries, and there is no room to budge on the billed hours.

I don't necessarily view the firms as the problem; they are going to hire as many associates at whatever salary as long as it is profitable. The problem is the thousands of new JDs flooding the market who have no shot at gainful employment. The barrier of entry into the profession should be the schools, not the job market. Using medical schools as an example, even lower ranked med schools have high admissions standards. Not everyone who wants to be a doctor can get into an accredited med school, but just about anyone with a pulse can get into an accredited law school somewhere.

imchuckbass58 wrote:-The associated costs of associates are much, much higher than you think. I do not have figures, but I would not be surprised if it was upwards of $100k/year. When I worked in consulting we looked at the all-in costs of workers, and in the company we were looking at, workers making $80k/year cost approximately $150k total to support (only variable costs like benefits, office space, etc.). I'm sure it's higher since lawyers have better health plans, secretarial support, expensive real estate, etc.

-Recruiting associates is extremely expensive. Think about how how much it costs for a firm to put on all those receptions, take 20 lawyers off billable matters to do interviews, fly back people for callbacks, etc. And that's only for one school. Add into that the fact that even at top schools all that recruiting may yield you 4 or 5 associates. Again, consulting refernce - recruiting a new analyst cost something like $50,000/head (not including what you pay them over the summer to jack off and go to lunch).

I don't doubt your figures, but they reflect the overall per-employee cost. The marginal cost of each additional employee would be much less as things like heath care plans and training programs are aggregated.

And with regard to your second point, if I were a BigLaw hiring partner I might completely change the way people are hired, but you're always going to have recruiting costs. That's part of the lifeblood of the business, its like office supplies or the phone bill.

Last edited by DerrickRose on Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hoopsguy6 wrote:I don't necessarily view the firms as the problem; they are going to hire as many associates at whatever salary as long as it is profitable. The problem is the thousands of new JDs flooding the market who have no shot at gainful employment. The barrier of entry into the profession should be the schools, not the job market. Using medical schools as an example, even lower ranked med schools have high admissions standards. Not everyone who wants to be a doctor can get into an accredited med school, but just about anyone with a pulse can get into an accredited law school somewhere.

That's a matter for the schools and the students. The firms don't have to care about any of that and believe me, they don't.

I don't know if what I'm proposing would help or hurt the ever-expanding flood of jobless JD's with six-figure debt. That's not really my concern here.

Renzo wrote:Again, You're missing my point. If you hire 49 associates at $90k, why not make them work 2100 hrs? What possible incentive is there for firms to allow associates to work less, no matter what they pay them?

2 Reasons:

1. No one with another choice will come work at your firm.2. You don't have that much work to go around.

DerrickRose wrote:Listen, if the structural costs associated with having 50 associates per class rather than 35 is so high that the increased billable hours (and higher quality per hour) that you would get ends up being a money loser, then I'm wrong.

But I appeal to math:35 associates billing 2100 hours a year, making $160k a year gets you 73,500 billed hours for $5.60 million.

49 associates billing 1500 hours a year, making $90k a year gets you the same number of billed hours for $4.41 million

So with plan #2 the firm gets:$1.19 million dollars.A higher per-hour level of productivity (I'm surprised no one has tried to argue this point yet)14 more lottery tickets on a potential rainmaking, multi-millions per year partner.

I refuse to believe that the cost of training and staffing 14 more people outweighs that.

A couple of points:

-The associated costs of associates are much, much higher than you think. I do not have figures, but I would not be surprised if it was upwards of $100k/year. When I worked in consulting we looked at the all-in costs of workers, and in the company we were looking at, workers making $80k/year cost approximately $150k total to support (only variable costs like benefits, office space, etc.). I'm sure it's higher since lawyers have better health plans, secretarial support, expensive real estate, etc.

-Recruiting associates is extremely expensive. Think about how how much it costs for a firm to put on all those receptions, take 20 lawyers off billable matters to do interviews, fly back people for callbacks, etc. And that's only for one school. Add into that the fact that even at top schools all that recruiting may yield you 4 or 5 associates. Again, consulting refernce - recruiting a new analyst cost something like $50,000/head (not including what you pay them over the summer to jack off and go to lunch).

-Sometimes work just can't be split anymore. Say there's a matter that requires a 2200 hours/year of attention from a junior associate. It's much easier and more efficient to staff one associate on that matter, than have one associate and another associate half time. Otherwise, they constantly have to communicate about who did what, you have different people gaining different knowledge of different pieces of the case, less time is spent actually working since they both have to be in every meeting, etc.

TITCR! i work in alumni/recruiting/business development at a v10 law firm and we handle a lot of the financials relating to associate hiring/development/benefits. I was going to try and word my thoughts but you said it all. people often underestimate just how much benefits cost a firm-- health/dental/vision insurance, 401k contributions, bar stipends, training costs, costs for technology (laptops, blackberries, security and data backup), resource database accounts such as westlaw/lexis/capitalIQ accounts, relocations stipends, traveling/meal reimbursements, and so on. this holds true for all corporations/firms-- if one person can do the work of two, even if it means paying time and a half for overtime work, it is usually a lot cheaper to employ the one.

yeah this list is slightly lacking. BC grads dominate ropes and grey and have similar if not better biglaw placement than BU grads and consistently have the same or better peer assessment scores. IMO BC and even Fordham are peer schools with the rest of those on the unofficial #20, especially when focus is on biglaw

imisscollege wrote:yeah this list is slightly lacking. BC grads dominate ropes and grey and have similar if not better biglaw placement than BU grads and consistently have the same or better peer assessment scores. IMO BC and even Fordham are peer schools with the rest of those on the unofficial #20, especially when focus is on biglaw

I think a more apt phrasing of what that guy was saying in TLS vernacular is T30.

yeah this list is slightly lacking. BC grads dominate ropes and grey and have similar if not better biglaw placement than BU grads and consistently have the same or better peer assessment scores. IMO BC and even Fordham are peer schools with the rest of those on the unofficial #20, especially when focus is on biglaw

I think it's funny that a T20 list that has 26 schools on it is "lacking".

yeah this list is slightly lacking. BC grads dominate ropes and grey and have similar if not better biglaw placement than BU grads and consistently have the same or better peer assessment scores. IMO BC and even Fordham are peer schools with the rest of those on the unofficial #20, especially when focus is on biglaw

I think it's funny that a T20 list that has 26 schools on it is "lacking".

I think its funny that hearing a real live hiring partner mention the phrase "top 20 schools" in passing has caused such a scuttlebutt.

yeah this list is slightly lacking. BC grads dominate ropes and grey and have similar if not better biglaw placement than BU grads and consistently have the same or better peer assessment scores. IMO BC and even Fordham are peer schools with the rest of those on the unofficial #20, especially when focus is on biglaw

I think it's funny that a T20 list that has 26 schools on it is "lacking".

+1. Isn't the point of the article to suggest a decline in the OCI at T20ish and below in schools? Wouldn't schools like Fordham and BC (in other words, schools outside the T20 that have done fairly well traditionally) be prime candidates for cutting back?

I don't think the T20 is going to be a hard cuttoff by any means, but I wouldn't feel too good anywhere around the T20 (including T15-T20) based on this article.

yeah this list is slightly lacking. BC grads dominate ropes and grey and have similar if not better biglaw placement than BU grads and consistently have the same or better peer assessment scores. IMO BC and even Fordham are peer schools with the rest of those on the unofficial #20, especially when focus is on biglaw[/quote]

I think it's funny that a T20 list that has 26 schools on it is "lacking".[/quote]

+1. Isn't the point of the article to suggest a decline in the OCI at T20ish and below in schools? Wouldn't schools like Fordham and BC (in other words, schools outside the T20 that have done fairly well traditionally) be prime candidates for cutting back?

I don't think the T20 is going to be a hard cuttoff by any means, but I wouldn't feel too good anywhere around the T20 (including T15-T20) based on this article.[/quote]

I got the impression that it was basically don't go to a low tier 1 or tier 2 school and expect to do really well (relatively) and get biglaw. I have to assume that the ropes and grey partner didn't literally mean any sort of cutoff on the strong, "right-around-t20" schools

AngryAvocado wrote:+1. Isn't the point of the article to suggest a decline in the OCI at T20ish and below in schools? Wouldn't schools like Fordham and BC (in other words, schools outside the T20 that have done fairly well traditionally) be prime candidates for cutting back?

I don't think the T20 is going to be a hard cuttoff by any means, but I wouldn't feel too good anywhere around the T20 (including T15-T20) based on this article.

This may be the rose colored glasses of a T21 student, but I would interpret it more as a shot against Cardozo type schools where a big firm might show up and give callbacks to only one or two people.

But what I really think is that this is just one guy's temporary ramblings. Firms have put a lot of thought and research into whether the talent is better at the top of school X or the median of school Y. They aren't going to throw that away just for the sake of administrative efficiency.

AngryAvocado wrote:+1. Isn't the point of the article to suggest a decline in the OCI at T20ish and below in schools? Wouldn't schools like Fordham and BC (in other words, schools outside the T20 that have done fairly well traditionally) be prime candidates for cutting back?

I don't think the T20 is going to be a hard cuttoff by any means, but I wouldn't feel too good anywhere around the T20 (including T15-T20) based on this article.

This may be the rose colored glasses of a T21 student, but I would interpret it more as a shot against Cardozo type schools where a big firm might show up and give callbacks to only one or two people.

But what I really think is that this is just one guy's temporary ramblings. Firms have put a lot of thought and research into whether the talent is better at the top of school X or the median of school Y. They aren't going to throw that away just for the sake of administrative efficiency.

AngryAvocado wrote:+1. Isn't the point of the article to suggest a decline in the OCI at T20ish and below in schools? Wouldn't schools like Fordham and BC (in other words, schools outside the T20 that have done fairly well traditionally) be prime candidates for cutting back?

I don't think the T20 is going to be a hard cuttoff by any means, but I wouldn't feel too good anywhere around the T20 (including T15-T20) based on this article.

This may be the rose colored glasses of a T21 student, but I would interpret it more as a shot against Cardozo type schools where a big firm might show up and give callbacks to only one or two people.

But what I really think is that this is just one guy's temporary ramblings. Firms have put a lot of thought and research into whether the talent is better at the top of school X or the median of school Y. They aren't going to throw that away just for the sake of administrative efficiency.

DerrickRose, perhaps you didn't hear the recruiter. T20. sorry, bro.

T20 is bad, but it doesn't make me as mad as T13 or CC ... N.

The way that the same people who yell at n00bs to ignore the rankings wildly overreact to those same rankings is absurd.

Last edited by DerrickRose on Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

miamiman wrote:I actually find no fault with T6, T13, or T20. It sucks that you're not part of one those groups.

T6 is fine. T5 is ridiculous anti-NYU trolling, T-20 is ridiculous pro-WUSTL and GW trolling, and T13 is a rare combination of both ridiculous anti-GULC trolling and ridiculous pro-Cornell trolling.

I support the T13.

You have no empirical evidence. The T14 is a tradition-rich institution. It is self-perpetuating.

Before 2009 data, Cornell placed just about as well as MVPDBN. Last year they took a huge hit. Whether that is lasting, is to be seen but I doubt it. NYC market fell faster than the rest and the more a school placed in NYC the worse their 2009 data was. I bet in 2010, and 2011, Cornell willl start moving back to MVP rather than towards Gtown, Vandy Utex.